Post navigation

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

“Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.

Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10 to the minus 12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro- miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing.” (pp. 249-250)

“Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell. Viewed down a light microscope at a magnification of some several hundred times, such as would have been possible in Darwin’s time, a living cell is a relatively disappointing spectacle appearing only as an ever-changing and apparently disordered pattern of blobs and particles which, under the influence of unseen turbulent forces, are continually tossed haphazardly in all directions.

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify the cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant air ship large enough to cover a great city like London or New Your. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of those openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometre in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell.

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each on consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein molecule – would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.

We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.” (pp. 328-329)

“Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” (p. 261)

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.” (p. 264)

“It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10 to the minus 16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.” (p. 338)

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? (p. 342)

2 thoughts on “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”

The Eminent Demise of Evolution
In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is three-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn’t stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order.
1825
“…Physical philosophy, for a long time past, had taken upon itself to deny the truth of the Mosaical statements, and often with much sarcasm, because it assigned a date of not more than about four thousand years ago, for the period of a Revolution which was able to cause marine substances to be imbedded in all parts of this inhabited earth; even in places the most remote from the sea, and in elevations very considerably above its present level. But, the progress of physical research during the last few years, conducted by naturalists of acute and honest minds, has at last terminated in so signal a concession to the testimony of the Mosaical record in this particular; that, added to the authority of Bacon’s and Newton’s philosophy, it renders that testimony paramount, as the rule by which all inquiries concerning revolutions general to the globe ought henceforth to be conducted. For, the mineral geology has been brought at length, by physical phenomena alone, to these conclusions; ‘That the soils of all the plains were deposited in the bosom of a tranquil water; that their actual order is only to be dated from the period of the retreat of that water; that the date of that period is not very ancient; and, that it cannot be carried back above five or six thousand years.’” Granville Penn,Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, Vol. 2, (London: James Duncan, 1825), p. 6
1840
Speaking of the diluvial theories of Granville Penn and the imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint:
“Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them: it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge.” Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
For those who don’t know, Hutton was the predecessor of Charles Lyell and believed in an old earth without a global flood.
Of the concordance of history and the Biblical account:
“As time rolls on, new accessions of proof are unfolded; these will accumulate age by age continually, as Providence lifts the veil, until in the fulness of time, they shall merge into one mighty and irresistible blaze of truth, which will consume all the cobwebs of sophistry, and forever confound the infidel.” John Murray, Truth of Revelation, (London: William Smith, 1840), p. xv, xvi
1850
Of the disappearance of old earth geology and evolution [physical development]:
“Perhaps the author of the ‘Rambles’ could favour us with the induction process that converted himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to acquiesce in or rationally refute it. Till then I hold by my antiquated tenets, that our world, nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the ‘vestiges of creation.’ I conclude by mentioning that this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated from the sky.[!!!]–I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, “Philalethes.” Scottish Press, cited by Hugh Miller, Footsteps of the Creator, originally published in 1850. (Edinburgh: William Nimmo, 1869), p. 257
1871
Long ago, when all astronomers as well as modern geologists, were against me in the then amalgamated nebular and geological hypotheses, I ventured to prophesy, and that on the principles of our starting postulates, that both these hypotheses, being spurious, were destined to succumb under the advancing light of science properly so called. One of these, and that by far the more plausible, has since become extinct. And now again I venture, (but indeed there is no venture in the case,) to repeat the same prophecy regarding the survivor, that the time is on the wing, whether we require to wait for it short or long, when it will follow its better-half to the lower regions. Patrick McFarlane, Esq., L.M.V.I.,Antidote Against the Unscriptural and Unscientific Tendency of Modern Geology; with Remarks on Several Cognate Subjects, (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1871), p. 89
1878
“There are some signs of this whimsical theory of Evolution soon taking another phase. Carl Vogt has given hints that perhaps they have, after all, made a mistake as to the line of descent. It may be found, he conjectures, that Man is notdescended from the Ape family but from the Dog!
“Other theories may soon be heard of–for the human mind is restless under the burthen of mystery.” Thomas Cooper, Evolution, The Stone Book and The Mosaic Record of Creation, (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 186-187
1884
“As an illustration of the change of thought, the lecturer [Thomas Kimber–grm] spoke of evolution’s failure as a strong theory and the downfall of Darwinism. When the theory came out it was seized upon with avidity, and most of the great scholars examined it and accepted it. Now they had given it up. Prof. Virchow in the Edinburgh celebration said evolution had no scientific basis. No skull had yet been found differing to any extent from the general type. Prof. Tyndall had lately said that ‘evolution belongs to the twilight of conjecture.’ Prof. Huxley, at first one if its strongest advocates, said the link between the living the the not living had not been found. It must be found to prove the evolution theory.” “Thomas Kimber’s Lecture on Science in Relation to Divine Truths,” The New York Times, Nov 25, 1884.
1894
“It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration.” ~ J. William Dawson, The Meeting Place of History and Geology, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1894), p. 206
1895
“In conclusion, we venture to say that we expect one good result from the publication of Professor Prestwich’s treatise, and that is that the flippant style of speaking of the Deluge, said to have been adopted in recent times by some who might, one would suppose, have known better, will henceforth be dropped;…” F. R. Wegg-Prosser, “Art. VIII.—Scientific Evidence of the Deluge,” Dublin Review, p. 415
1903
“It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand.”
“Such utterances are now very common in the periodicals of Germany, it is said. It seems plain the reaction has commenced and that the pendulum that has swung so strongly in the direction of Evolution, is now oscillating the other way. It required twenty years for Evolution to reach us from abroad. Is it necesary for us to wait twenty years more to reverse our opinions?” Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers,Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com …
1904
“Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel.” Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com …
1905
Book title:
Collapse of Evolution, by Luther Tracy Townsend — Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com … Presages Scott Huse’s book by the same title in 1983
1912
Of his theory of the flood, which he thought was being accepted, Isaac Vail wrote:
” It was this independent research in a very wide field of thought that led me to enlarge the pamphlet of 1874 to a book of 400 pages in 1885; and again it was revised and enlarged in 1902; and I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that this last edition is now used in some of the colleges, and in at least two universities as an educator. “
“When the first volume was published in 1874 it was a rare thing to meet with a scientist who would admit that the earth had a ring system; to-day it is as rare to meet with one who does not concede the great fact, and the great problem is resolving itself into this form: How did the earth’s rings fall back to the surface of the planet?” ~ Isaac Newton Vail, The Earth’s Annular System, 4th ed. (Pasadena: The Annular World Co., 1912), p. v
Book title
“The Passing of Evolution”, by George Frederick Wright. Volume VII of the Fundamentals (1910-1915) . Source: Talk Origins message news:atn3n90189g@drn.newsguy.com …
1922
“The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time” – George McCready Price, quoted in J. E. Conant’s The Church The Schools And Evolution (1922), p.18 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply athttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
The American Association for the Advancement of Science felt forced to formally deny such a claim . They issued a report which says:
Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a “mere guess” which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
1.
1. The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a “mere guess.” No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.” http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=156
1924
“I am convinced that science is making substantial progress. Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. As a doctrine it is merely of historical interest. True, the current teaching of geology still occupy the center of the stage, and the real modern discoveries which completely discredit these teachings are only beginning to get a hearing. The New Catastrophism is the theory of tomorrow in the science of geology; and under the teaching of this new view of geology the whole theory of evolution will take its place with the many perishing dreams and the wrecks of forgotten deliriums. And at that time the entire teaching of science along these lines will be found to be in complete harmony with the opening chapters of the Ancient Hebrew Scriptures. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” – George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
1929
“The world has had enough of evolution In the future, evolution will be remembered only as the crowning deception which the arch-enemy of human souls foisted upon the race in his attempt to lead man away from the Savior. The Science of the future will be creationism. As the ages roll by, the mysteries of creation week will be cleared up, and as we have learned to read the secrets of creative power in the lives of animals and plants about us, we shall understand much that our dim senses cannot now fathom. If we hope to continue scientific study in the laboratories and fields of the earth restored, we must begin to get the lessons of truth now. The time is ripe for a rebellion against the dominion of evolution, and for a return to the fundamentals of true science,” Back To Creationism. – Harold W. Clark (1929) Back To Creationism, p. 139 Taken from Troy Britain’s reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
1935
“The chain of evidence that purports to support the theory of evolution is a chain indeed, but its links are formed of sand and mist. Analyze the evidence and it melts away; turn the light of true investigation upon its demonstrations and they fade like fog before the freshening breeze. The theory stands today positively disproved, and we will venture the prophecy that in another two decades, when younger men, free from the blind prejudices of a passing generation are allowed to investigate the new evidence, examine the facts, and form their own conclusions, the theory will take its place in the limbo of disproved tidings. In that day the world of science will be forced to come back to the unshakable foundation of fact that is the basis of the true philosophy of the origin of life.” Harry Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1935), p. 113-114
( I would like to thank J. Barber for pointing this out to me. He had previously quoted it at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html The above comes from my copy of the book.
1940
“The Bible is the one foundation on which all true science must finally rest: because it is the one book of ultimate origins. Science established on this foundation will endure. In fact, there can be no true science without this foundation. False science must fall. Already, its decline is evident.” L. Allen Higley, Science and Truth, (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1940), p. 10
1961
“I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist. On the balance of the things that I have both read and discovered for myself I am a creationist, so far as mega-evolution is concerned. By mega-evolution one refers to the origin of kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders, the largest groups in any classification of living things. I concede micro-evolution, of course, which is the origin by evolutionary processes of species, genera, and even families. An increasing number of thoughtful scientists seem to be adopting this view, which I should add is decades old, and far from being original.” ~ Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1961) p. 2
1963
“In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism” ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
“Here and there, surprisingly enough, even in the standard scientific publications media, there are beginning to appear evidences of doubts concerning evolution. Nothing much which is overtly skeptical of evolution as a whole can be published, of course, but at least signs are appearing which indicate there may exist a very substantial substratum of doubt concerning evolution today.” ~ Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
1970
“Indeed, of late, more and more have come to recognize not only the reality but also the importance of the spiritual. Dryden says that scientists have come to realize that atrophy of the moral and spiritual life is inconsistent with well-rounded development. ” ~ John W. Klotz, Gene, Genesis and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970), p. 14
1975
“QUESTION–Do non-Christian scientists still argue that man has
descended from apes or monkeys?
ANSWER–In many school textbooks this is accepted almost as if it is fact, but many biologists and other scientists have long since swung away from this view. There are many and varied theories of evolution today, but scientists who reject divine creation are beset with serious problems and these are being increasingly recognized.” ~ Clifford Wilson, In the Beginning God…, (Balston Spa, New York: Word of Truth Productions, 1975), p. 32
1976
“But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment.” Duane T. Gish, “Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1,” Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
By Tom Bethell
“Darwin’s Mistake (Harper‘s, February 1976): “Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse. Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago.”http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_tautology.html
1980
“Is Darwinism on its Last Leg?” http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/images/cej1_03.jpg
1983
Scott M. Huse’s book title: , The Collapse of Evolution,
1984
“Furthermore, even if it wasn’t clear in Darwin’s day, the modern scientific creationist movement has made it abundantly clear in our day that all the real facts of science support this Biblical position. Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time.” Henry M. Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 329-330
“One of the encouraging signs of our day is to see the large number of young people who are beginning to realize they are being manipulated by the educational system. In my lectures on university campuses and elsewhere, I am encouraged by the increasing awareness of young people to this problem. More and more young scientists are interested in searching out the creationist explanation for origins and earth history. Some excellent creationist research is also being accomplished by these young people even at the graduate level. They are not receiving much encouragement from the educational establishment, but they are going ahead anyway.” ~ Donald E. Chittick, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict, (Creation Compass, 1984), p. 191
1985
“There are still some die-hard uniformitarians who would question the first assumption but, as documented in the preceding chapter, more and more in the modern school of geologists are saying that everything in the geologic column is a record of catastrophe.” ~ Henry M. Morris, Creation and the Modern Christian, (El Cajon, California: Master Book Publishers, 1985), p. 241
1987
“Evolution is in absolute chaos today and has been especially for this decade of the ’80′s. The ’80′s has been extremely bad for Evolution. Every major pillar of Evolution has crumbled in the decade of the ’80′s.” D. James Kennedy on “The John Ankerberg Show,” 1987
1988
“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had finally been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They have discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical
position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory. One of the world’s most highly respected philosophers of science, Dr. Karl Popper, has argued that one theory of origins, almost universally accepted as a scientific fact, does not even qualify as a scientific theory. A 1980 display at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History made the same admission.” ~ Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma,
(Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 7,8
“Leading scientists are abandoning their faith in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Why?” Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), Back cover.
1989
“Although the history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian maxim, ‘the present is the key to the past,’ more and more geologists are returning to catastrophism.” ~ Henry M. Morris, “Evolution – A House Divided,” Impact, 194, August, 1989, p. iii.
1990
“Even though the large majority of modern scientists still embrace an evolutionary view of origins, there is a significant and growing number of scientists who have abandoned evolution altogether and have accepted creation instead.” ~ Mark Looy, “I Think; Therefore, There is a Supreme Thinker,” Impact, 208, October, 1990, p. i
1991
Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies.” Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses” Impact, 216 (June 1991), p. iv.
1993
“Today, however, the ‘creative’ role of natural selection is being questioned by a growing number of scientists. Yet most of these scientists have not reconsidered the intelligent design argument which was replaced by natural selection as the supposed source of apparent design.” ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 67
Today, there is a growing recognition among scientists of the dramatic implication that the principle of uniformity holds for the origin of functional information. This is not an argument against Darwinian evolution. It is, however, an important scientific inference in favor of the intelligent origin of genetic messages.” ~ Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co., 1993), p. 64
“There are hopeful signs, however. Evolution theory itself has now collapsed under scientific scrutiny. Further, the foundations have not been totally abandoned by scientists.” ~ T. V. Varughese, “Christianity and Technological Advance,” Impact, 245, p. iv.
1994
“Even scientists are leaving Darwinian evolution in droves, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. They have grown weary of arguing how random mutations in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements in it.” ~ John D. Morris, The Young Earth, (Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1994), p. 121
“Well, the Big Bang has started to fizzle! Astronomer Hoyle says that a ‘sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.’ The Big Bang has fallen with a big bang! Eminent scientists who reject the BBT include Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer Jayant Narlikar, astronomer N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, physicist Allen Allen, physicist Hermann bondi, physicist Robert Oldershaw and physicist G. de Vaucouleurs.” ~ Don Boys, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, (Largo, Fl: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 44-45
1995
“The cosmologists (with a number of notable exceptions) are all committed to the ‘Big Bang’ theory of cosmic origin, the date of which is the age for which they are searching. But the ‘Big Bang’ itself is highly speculative, and there are a growing number of astronomers who are questioning it.” ~ Henry M. Morris, “Cosmology’s Holy Grail,” Back To GenesisFebruary, 1995,No. 74, p. b.
“Of course, I take a different view. In my opinion, much of the history of the twentieth century will be seen in retrospect as a failed experiment in scientific atheism. The thinkers most responsible for making the twentieth century mindset were Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Freud has now lost most of his scientific standing, and Marx has been so spectacularly discredited that he retains his influence only in the loftiest academic ivory towers. Darwinism is still untouchable, but the most widely used college evolutionary biology textbook (by Douglas Futuyma) links his achievement to that of the other two. Phillip E. Johnson, “What (If Anything) Hath God Wrought? Academic Freedom and the Religious Professor”Academe, Sept. 1995. http://www.leaderu.com/pjohnson/wrought.html
GRM: Sounds a bit like Harold Clark’s 1929 statement.
1996
“We are the only people ever to see (or need) direct scientific proof not only of God’s existence, but also for His transcendent capacity to create space and time dimensions, as well as to operate in dimensions independent from our own four.” ~ Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1996), p. 33
“The Behe argument is as revolutionary for our time as was Darwin’s argument was for his. If true, it presages not just a change in a scientific theory, but an overthrow of the worldview that has dominated intellectual life ever since the triumph of Darwinism, the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism or naturalism. A lot is at stake, and not just for science.” ~ Phillip E. Johnson, “The Storyteller and the Scientist”, First Things, Oct. 1996, p.47.
1997
“Even though the Big Bang is still the cosmogony of choice for the majority of astronomers, there is a rapidly growing body of very competent dissenters. “Henry Morris, Back to Genesis,101, May, 1997, p. a,b
1998
Darwin gave us a creation story, one in which God was absent and undirected natural processes did all the work. That creation story has held sway for more than a hundred years. It is now on the way out. When it goes, so will all the edifices that have been built on its foundation. William A. Dembski, Introduction to Mere Creation, in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 13-30, p. 29
“What is science going to look like once intelligent design replaces it?” William A. Dembski, “Redesigning Science,” in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 93-112, p. 93
Of Evolution:
“In appearance it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed a few years ago. But the ship has sprung a metaphysical leak, and that leak widens as more and more people understand it and draw attention to the conflict between empirical science and materialist philosophy. The more perceptive of the ship’s officers know that the ship is doomed if the leak cannot be plugged. The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship’s great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom.” Phillip Johnson, “How to Sink a Battleship,” in William A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation, (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), pp 446-453, p. 453
I believe that at some time well before 2059, the bicentennial year of Darwins Origin of Species, perhaps as early as 2009 or 2019, there will be another celebration that will mark the demise of the Darwinist ideology that was so triumphant in 1959. Phillip Johnson, How to Sink a Battleship, in Mere Creation, ed. By William A. Dembski, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 446-453, p. 448
Of Big Bang:
At the present time the most favoured theory on how the Universe began is what has come to be popularly known as the Big Bang Theory. It is a theory which has received much mathematical and physical examination and is undoubtedly the theory most widely accepted by Astrophysicists. But it has its critics and is not expected to survive much longer. Leander R. Pimenta, Before the First Day, (Chichester, England: Creation Books, 1998), p. 152
1999
“Meanwhile, it is my personal hope that these positions newly adopted by scholars in the scientific community when they do reach the larger world, will lead to turn to a renewal of philosophy and humane letters, and that an enhanced confidence in the ordered structure of physical reality will afford men and women a more assured, firmer stride in the paths of narrative and poetic composition. Actually, I have no doubt that this will be the case, at least after my time, and I cherish the suspicion that future students of literary history, not so terribly far down the road, may look back to these past two centuries as a somewhat weird period, during which an extraordinary multitude of singularly disturbed authors composed an inordinate number of very bizarre and disquieting books. ‘Yes,’ their teachers will be obliged to inform them, ‘a lot of people back in those unfortunate days had gotten it into their silly heads that the whole world and everything in it had somehow evolved by accident, you see. It was all rather strange.” Patrick Henry Reardon, “The World as Text,” Touchstone, July/August, 1999, p. 89
Darwinists will no doubt object to this characterization of their theory. For them Darwinism continues to be a fruitful theory, one whose imminent demise I am greatly exaggerating. William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 113
2000
“There is growing interest in a biological theory of intelligent design around the world. While many still vigorously oppose all such ideas, there is a much greater openness than ever before. Philosophers, mathematicians, chemists, engineers, and biologists are willing to suggest, even demand, that a more rigorous study of intelligent design in relation to biological organisms be pursued. A renaissance may be around the corner.” Ray Bohlin, “The Natural Limits to Biological Change,” in Ray Bohlin, ed., Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), p. 44
2001
“Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution.” Henry Morris, “The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary, Part II”, Impact, 331(2001) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm
“Intellectual honesty will soon force many scientists to abandon Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species in exchange for intelligent design or outright Biblical creation.” Gregory J. Brewer, “The Immanent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,” Impact, 341(2001), p. i
2002
“Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence.” Henry Morris, “What are Evolutionists Afraid of?” Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
As the evidence mounts, many biologists and others are returning to a belief in a Creation-God. Ralph O. Muncaster,Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 19
The good news is that the ever-increasing acquisition of knowledge is now pointing scientists back to God! Based on historical factors, eventually that belief will filter down to the schools and the general public. Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 21
“Others may fear a need to change their lifestyles to please a God. Still others make their livelihood trying to prove naturalistic evolution. There are many possible reasons, yet the scientific trend, particularly in microbiology, is a return to consideration of God. Ralph O. Muncaster, Why Are Scientists Turning to God?, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2002), p. 35
In Aug 2002, Paul Nelson predicted that common descent (CD) would be gasping for breath. Well it is now 2.5 years. I don’t hear the wheezing:
Paul Nelson (Aug 8, 2002 4:58:47 PM)
“Here’s a prediction. Universal CD will be gasping for breath in two or three years, if not sooner.”http://www.iscid.org/workshops-2002-paulnelson.php accessed 1-26-05
2003
In fact, the common presupposition that evolution is right may soon be behind us. Ralph O. Muncaster, Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 56
However, in 1991, Mayr boldly stated,
There is probably no biologist left today who would question that all organisms now found on the earth have descended from a single origin of life.
In the ten years since Mayr made this statement, however, support for it has been shattered. Ralph O. Muncaster,Dismantling Evolution, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), p. 72
What should one make of these evolutionary controversies among atheists? The individuals engaging in the controversies would tell us that these are simply family fights about details. Just be patient, they explain, and all the controversies will be resolved in favor of a universe in which God is irrelevant. My view is that several of the disputes appear to be about basics, not details. And I think there is some probability that the entire paradigm may come crashing down at some time in the future. Henry F. Schaefer, Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” (Watkinsville, GA: The Apollo Trust, 2003), p. 96
As a result of the tremendous advances in the study of genetics, molecular biology, and the acknowledgement that the fossil record does not provide any support for the theory of evolution, a growing number of scientists have either publicly rejected evolution or have expressed very serious reservations about Darwins theory. Grant R. Jeffrey,Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p.168
In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners. Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174
2004
History seems to be repeating itself. Just as the first Darwinists gave up on the earliest versions of abiogenesis, so scientists today are abandoning long-cherished pillars of the naturalistic origin-of-life paradigm. Many now speculate that life may have originated somewhere other than on Earth. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004), p. 27
At the time, Darwin offered a powerful vision for understanding biology and therewith the world. That vision is now faltering, and a new vision is offering to replace it. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, Downer’s Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 28
Yes, we are interested in and write about the theological and cultural implications of Darwinisms imminent demise and replacement by intelligent design. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 50
[GRM: One is tempted to ask Dembski if it wouldn’t be more likely for ID to replace evolution if lots of non-religious scientists were accepting ID?]
“Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years? What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?”
“Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the sub-cellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.” Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (2004). “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.” Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.p. 64.
World Magazine published a series of articles on what the world would look like in 2025. This classic statement came from an article by Phillip Johnson.
“The collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the Soviet myth, just as the scientific collapse of Darwinism, preceded as it was by the discrediting of Marxism and Freudianism, prepared the way for the culture to turn aside from the mythology of naturalism to rediscover the buried treasure that the mythology had been concealing.” Phillip Johnson, “The Demise of Naturalism,” World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_2.asp
From that same issue we find Jonathan Wells saying the same silly things.
“Now, a mere quarter of a century later, Darwinian evolution is little more than a historical footnote in biology textbooks. Just as students learn that scientists used to believe that the Sun moves around the Earth and maggots are spontaneously generated in rotting meat, so students also learn that scientists used to believe that human beings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. How could a belief that was so influential in 2000 become so obsolete by 2025? Whatever happened to evolutionary theory?” Jonathan Wells, “What ever happened to Evolution?”World, April 3, 2004, http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/04-03-04/cover_3.asp
Then of course there is this:
“The house of evolution is falling. Its various theorists are increasingly at war with each other over the basic question of how evolution is supposed to work, and its materialistic and naturalistic foundation is becoming increasingly clear. The evolutionists tenaciously hold to their theory on the basis of faith and as an axiom of their worldview. The publication of these two articles in influential magazines indicates that proponents of evolution see the Intelligent Design movement as a real threat. They are right.” R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/203/8|14|21|28/4.htm
2006
Posted on Sun, Apr. 02, 2006
Evolution theory on last legs, says seminary teacher
By Dylan T. Lovan
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LOUISVILLE – To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won’t matter in a decade.
By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
The mathematician turned Darwin critic says there is much to be learned about how life evolved on this planet. And he thinks the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won’t be able to supply the answers. “I see this all disintegrating very quickly,” he said.”http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/14244463.htm?source=rss&channel=kentucky_state
accessed 4-2-06
Denyse O’Leary:
“Its almost not worth deciding what to do about Darwinism, because it is on the way out anyway.” Denise O’Leary, “What I would tell the Catholic Church: re intelligent design and evolution,” August 29, 2006, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=230270
Way to go Denyse. You have now joined a long line of failed prophets!
“Philosopher Jay Richards of Acton Institute concluded from his findings that the universe was designed for discovery. And with each discovery, the Darwinian theory of evolution is expected to go down as ‘a huge mistake in history,’ Richards said.” http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
2007
Jerry Fodor Oct 18, 2007 London Review of Books
“In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory is in the offing.”http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
Jonathan Wells,
“10. But the good news is that Darwinism will lose. First, Darwinists will lose because the scientific evidence is against them. Second, they will lose because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. Finally, Darwinists will lose because they are relying on a tactic always guaranteed to fail in America: censorship.” http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK27XO8HQYK20IX
2008
“It is not too early to chart the intellectual course to the 22nd century. The 21st century may well mark a gradual disaffection with Darwinism, comparable to the 20th century’s loss of support for Marxism.” Steve Fuller, Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007, page 126
Barry Arrington, the new webmaster at William Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent
“We live in exciting times. The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards. These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down. I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from menacing colossus astride the globe to non-existent, the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness. You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.”http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whats-new-at-ud/
Religionists and creationists and more recently Intelligent Designers (ID) have been claiming (still) for over 185 years now (time updated) that either evolution or the major supporting concepts behind it is being abandoned by scientists. This is just one more lie that the fundamentalists religions are trying to spread in support of their Failing Religious Dogma. The amount of lies they spread throughout the world is truly amazing…one would think the Bible had noinjunctions against lying.
Seeing all this, one can reasonably ask the question: When exactly will the demise of evolution be apparent to the rest of us?

As you said, TWOM, long but worthwhile.
And highlights that The Theory of Evolution is more a political and ideological movement than one based on genuine science – much like the promotion of Man-made Global Warming [AGW] by politicians and ideologues and the fraudulent employment of pseudo-science [not to mention outright lies] to underwrite it.

The following, which I’ll re-quote from your above post, perhaps touches on why evolution is still promoted, while creationism and Intelligent Design remain much maligned:

“In fact, the scientific problems and inconsistencies of the theory of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious that it now faces collapse on all fronts. The only thing holding the tattered theory of evolution together is the powerful desire of millions of people to hold on to the notion of evolution regardless of its scientific weakness, because the alternative is unthinkable to its practitioners.” Grant R. Jeffrey, Creation, (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 2003), p. 174 2004

PS Some pretty eminent scientists in your above comment – and not a few ex-evolutionist turned IDer or even creationist among them. And funny how I draw exactly the opposite conclusion than does G.R. Morton. None so blind as those who refuse to see.